3 ms·

The reason people tend to pay less attention to arguments by hypocrites is that arguments are often about tradeoffs that cannot be scientifically computed or di

The reason people tend to pay less attention to arguments by hypocrites is that arguments are often about tradeoffs that cannot be scientifically computed or discovered purely through rational debate, and actions speak louder than words. If someone is arguing for tradeoff A, and relying on moral/emotional/somewhat vague arguments for it, whilst simultaneously their actions suggest they actually prefer tradeoff B, then that suggests their proposed weighting of the tradeoffs is actually wrong and thus that their words are not worth very much. In this case, the Guardian loves to argue that tax avoidance is wrong, using arguments that are vague and emotional at their core (e.g. fairness), but actually engages in it rampantly themselves. Given that actions speak louder than words, that suggests that their proposed tradeoff is perhaps not the right one.

avar 11y ago
A newspapers finances aren't going to be managed by its editorial team, and bringing themselves up is a distraction from what the editorial team is trying to achieve. Furthermore there's no general hypocrisy involved in advocating for stricter government policy A while following the loose current law to do B because 1) You gain nothing from changing these things on the individual rather than policy level and 2) if you do A instead of B you're at a competitive disadvantage.
- sievebrain 11y ago
  It's the Guardian. You can't separate their financing from their politics because their financial setup was done specifically to allow them to lose money by running a newsroom far larger than their readership would normally allow. The Guardian has not advocated for stricter government policies: they can't because they can't even define tax avoidance, let alone formulate a solution. Instead they've engaged in moral crusades in various attempts to shame companies into paying more tax than they actually have to, whilst simultaneously refusing to do so themselves. That is, I believe, general hypocrisy.
devishard 11y ago
> The reason people tend to pay less attention to arguments by hypocrites is that arguments are often about tradeoffs that cannot be scientifically computed or discovered purely through rational debate, Wow, you've just chosen to discard rationality right at the beginning? I guess that's one way to go about it but I sure don't feel like I need to say much to prove that assuming hypocrites are wrong is irrational. > actions speak louder than words. This is a great rule of thumb when applied to judging a person's character, but completely irrelevant to evaluating the correctness of an argument. > If someone is arguing for tradeoff A, and relying on moral/emotional/somewhat vague arguments for it, whilst simultaneously their actions suggest they actually prefer tradeoff B, then that suggests their proposed weighting of the tradeoffs is actually wrong and thus that their words are not worth very much. Sure, moral/emotional/somewhat vague arguments are poor arguments. Actions still have nothing to do with it. > In this case, the Guardian loves to argue that tax avoidance is wrong, using arguments that are vague and emotional at their core (e.g. fairness), So attack their arguments. If their arguments are invalid they can be proven invalid without attacking The Guardian. The Guardian's hypocrisy remains irrelevant to this conversation. > Given that actions speak louder than words, that suggests that their proposed tradeoff is perhaps not the right one. No, it doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Even if we could consider the Guardian to be a single entity--which is isn't: as another poster pointed out, the writing staff are not the same people as the finance department--but even if we could consider the Guardian to be a single entity that was condemning behaviors while engaging in them, that would only prove that The Guardian is kind of an asshole. It doesn't prove that they're wrong.
- sievebrain 11y ago
  You cannot evaluate the "correctness" of arguments about many things in the political space. Bob says that the country would be better if taxes were raised on the rich and spent on the poor. Charlie says that this would make the country worse and a better approach is to focus on educational attainment. Who is right? How do you arrive at a situation where both Bob and Charlie agree with each other? Experience tells us that this isn't possible. They're probably arguing from different assumptions, they very likely have different ideas about what "better" means, and even if they could agree on those things, which path would actually yield better results is impossible to simulate or predict accurately. That doesn't mean Bob or Charlie have discarded rationality, it just means that pure application of logic cannot solve most of the problems on which politics dwells. When you say "attach the Guardian's arguments" after I just said that their arguments are vague and emotional, you're requesting something that won't go anywhere. The Guardian argues that companies should feel a moral obligation to pay more tax. At the same time, they don't appear to feel that obligation themselves. That's a fundamental inconsistency that invalidates their own "argument" (using the term loosely). There's nothing to refute: they did it themselves.

avar 11y ago

A newspapers finances aren't going to be managed by its editorial team, and bringing themselves up is a distraction from what the editorial team is trying to achieve. Furthermore there's no general hypocrisy involved in advocating for stricter government policy A while following the loose current law to do B because 1) You gain nothing from changing these things on the individual rather than policy level and 2) if you do A instead of B you're at a competitive disadvantage.

sievebrain 11y ago
It's the Guardian. You can't separate their financing from their politics because their financial setup was done specifically to allow them to lose money by running a newsroom far larger than their readership would normally allow. The Guardian has not advocated for stricter government policies: they can't because they can't even define tax avoidance, let alone formulate a solution. Instead they've engaged in moral crusades in various attempts to shame companies into paying more tax than they actually have to, whilst simultaneously refusing to do so themselves. That is, I believe, general hypocrisy.

devishard 11y ago

> The reason people tend to pay less attention to arguments by hypocrites is that arguments are often about tradeoffs that cannot be scientifically computed or discovered purely through rational debate, Wow, you've just chosen to discard rationality right at the beginning? I guess that's one way to go about it but I sure don't feel like I need to say much to prove that assuming hypocrites are wrong is irrational. > actions speak louder than words. This is a great rule of thumb when applied to judging a person's character, but completely irrelevant to evaluating the correctness of an argument. > If someone is arguing for tradeoff A, and relying on moral/emotional/somewhat vague arguments for it, whilst simultaneously their actions suggest they actually prefer tradeoff B, then that suggests their proposed weighting of the tradeoffs is actually wrong and thus that their words are not worth very much. Sure, moral/emotional/somewhat vague arguments are poor arguments. Actions still have nothing to do with it. > In this case, the Guardian loves to argue that tax avoidance is wrong, using arguments that are vague and emotional at their core (e.g. fairness), So attack their arguments. If their arguments are invalid they can be proven invalid without attacking The Guardian. The Guardian's hypocrisy remains irrelevant to this conversation. > Given that actions speak louder than words, that suggests that their proposed tradeoff is perhaps not the right one. No, it doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Even if we could consider the Guardian to be a single entity--which is isn't: as another poster pointed out, the writing staff are not the same people as the finance department--but even if we could consider the Guardian to be a single entity that was condemning behaviors while engaging in them, that would only prove that The Guardian is kind of an asshole. It doesn't prove that they're wrong.

sievebrain 11y ago
You cannot evaluate the "correctness" of arguments about many things in the political space. Bob says that the country would be better if taxes were raised on the rich and spent on the poor. Charlie says that this would make the country worse and a better approach is to focus on educational attainment. Who is right? How do you arrive at a situation where both Bob and Charlie agree with each other? Experience tells us that this isn't possible. They're probably arguing from different assumptions, they very likely have different ideas about what "better" means, and even if they could agree on those things, which path would actually yield better results is impossible to simulate or predict accurately. That doesn't mean Bob or Charlie have discarded rationality, it just means that pure application of logic cannot solve most of the problems on which politics dwells. When you say "attach the Guardian's arguments" after I just said that their arguments are vague and emotional, you're requesting something that won't go anywhere. The Guardian argues that companies should feel a moral obligation to pay more tax. At the same time, they don't appear to feel that obligation themselves. That's a fundamental inconsistency that invalidates their own "argument" (using the term loosely). There's nothing to refute: they did it themselves.